What Happened to "Some College"?

[Kudra]

Once upon a time, having "some college" marked on your resume or application actually meant something. Now you can have associates and even bachelors degrees and still make minimum wage. Is the educational standard improving? I've noticed that if you don't have a technical degree (in which case most of the credits don't transfer beyond that myopic program) you can have multiple degrees and still make minimum wage until you get a graduate degree or sign your life away to the military.

[ShitOnAStick]

That's all fine and dandy, but Mal sent me here under the expectation that there would be tits.

[BrianEtrius]

At 11/18/08 11:04 PM, Kudra wrote: Once upon a time, having "some college" marked on your resume or application actually meant something. Now you can have associates and even bachelors degrees and still make minimum wage. Is the educational standard improving? I've noticed that if you don't have a technical degree (in which case most of the credits don't transfer beyond that myopic program) you can have multiple degrees and still make minimum wage until you get a graduate degree or sign your life away to the military.

That's the growing problem. A friend of mine has a PHD in business but no one will hire him. It's really weird.

On the other hand, this could be for the better. It will force more people for better education for better jobs.

It's a good and bad thing.

At 11/18/08 11:09 PM, ShitOnAStick wrote: That's all fine and dandy, but Mal sent me here under the expectation that there would be tits.

Me too. WHY MAL WHY?

[Kudra]

My step sister graduated with a business degree (can't remember if it was just bachelors or masters) and yet she found she was making more waitressing in Boston than she could at any of the businesses she interviewed at. It was actually sad. Waitressing takes a pinch of patience, a dash of sass, and a hell of a lot of anger management, but four years of college takes a lot more. I am more disappointed than hopeful about this push for more education because the cost of schooling is ridiculous. Even with full financial aid, loan balances are painful and many students have to work full time to pay for their education. I have worked 40+ hours and I have worked only 20 or less (massage therapy pays better) and I failed out of school when I overworked myself. Soon you won't be able to make over $10 an hour without having a doctoral level degree.

That's the growing problem. A friend of mine has a PHD in business but no one will hire him. It's really weird.

On the other hand, this could be for the better. It will force more people for better education for better jobs.

It's a good and bad thing.

At 11/18/08 11:09 PM, ShitOnAStick wrote: That's all fine and dandy, but Mal sent me here under the expectation that there would be tits.

Me too. WHY MAL WHY?

[aviewaskewed]

It really makes one wonder if people won't just turn to trade schools and apprenticeships soon.

With tuition going up and a degree no longer a guarantee of success (and let's face it, some of the degrees colleges hand out are fricking worthless and they know it but they'll still let people plunk their money down to get it with no advisor or anything saying "well look, if you're going to go for this, you should also get this to improve success), how long can the college system continue to operate as it is? How long can the myth that college guarantees a better life persist? Strange, crappy times ahead most likely.

[Garthredbunlove]

Recent studies have shown that all major degrees have dropped in wages earned, with the exception of professional degrees - stuff like accounts, lawyers, and doctors.

[marchohare]

At 11/19/08 02:04 AM, Garthredbunlove wrote: Recent studies have shown that all major degrees have dropped in wages earned, with the exception of professional degrees - stuff like accounts, lawyers, and doctors.

I have a BA in Journalism with some Masters work. That and $5 will get me a burned-tasting cup of coffee at Starbucks. I'm making $12.50 an hour for high-end design work, and I'm lucky to have that.

My S.O.'s daughter is flunking out of high school, and shows every sign of being a kid who'll drop out. My S.O. (Registered Nurse, 3 Masters degrees, overqualified, unemployed) is terribly upset.

"Why?" I asked her. "We have a new, modern, 'service-based economy.' The kid will do about as well as everyone else without a high school diploma."

It doesn't take a high school diploma in our New, Modern, Service-Based Economy. Servants serving each other in the great, "at least you have a job" circle-jerk the U.S. has become get $7.50 an hour. If you want to be an engineer or something, move to India or China. You'll still make chicken feed, but at least you'll find it easier to keep up with the Joneses.

The current and ongoing crash is by design, I assure you. That pesky American Middle Class was too expensive. Real global wealth was having to pass on their fourth mansion and second yacht and 30th exotic vacation per year and stuff.

[Randy74]

It's all about competition really, the better person gets the job, and the boss looks for that better person. You go to a good school like Yale, and your chances are increased. It's going to be hard out there.

[altanese-mistress]

The biggest problem I see isn't so much that a degree won't get you anything, but that they want experience with it. And if every job demands experience, then it really leaves everyone competing for the handful of jobs that don't.

But, on the plus side, you probably have nearly no one applying for the ones that ask for experience. Apply for those too, and I guarantee that at least a handful will be willing to overlook a lack of experience.

[fli]

I don't think "some college" even meant nothing back then, much less now... where nearly everyone is getting a BA at least.

Unless you're still in a rural area where people don't have much education or have no ability or mobility to get it...

It's a competitive world.
that's how it is...

[SadisticMonkey]

A huge amount of people these days are pursueing higher education, making things competitive enough as it is, but a "bachelour of Business" is not exactly going to set your step sister apart from the crowd.

[W31RD0]

At 11/20/08 03:21 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: A huge amount of people these days are pursueing higher education, making things competitive enough as it is, but a "bachelour of Business" is not exactly going to set your step sister apart from the crowd.

I agree. For people with that sort of degree, I would suggest a job in accounts payable/recievable, credit associate, ect. Basically you want to go for jobs in the accounting department that are not big enough to hire a full-fledged accountant.

My fiance is the staff accountant of a major hotel. In her department there are many people who do not have degrees who assist in the accounting process.

[Al6200]

Kudra wrote:

Once upon a time, having "some college" marked on your resume or application actually meant something. Now you can have associates and even bachelors degrees and still make minimum wage. Is the educational standard improving? I've noticed that if you don't have a technical degree (in which case most of the credits don't transfer beyond that myopic program) you can have multiple degrees and still make minimum wage until you get a graduate degree or sign your life away to the military.

The problem with our educational system is that there are a lot of kids who have neither the ability nor the interest to get a real college education- but they go anyway because that is what kids in their social class are supposed to do, and people who don't have college degrees are treated in some circles like second class citizens.

The education system facilitates this by offering cream-puff versions of majors like psychology and communications and business (that's not to say that psychology is necessarily a cream-puff major, I'm sure that at schools like Harvard there is a substantive program. However in many cases psychology is a cream-puff major because there are no objective standards. By contrasts chemistry/math/engineering cannot be watered down and turned into cream puff majors because there are objective standards).

The real problem here is that a lot of fields don't have a uniform licensing process. If we created a method of licensing business majors or psychology majors that would be difficult enough to wipe out the kids who are in cream-puff programs, then we'd probably see a lot of kids getting rejected by their top choice colleges and then going to a 2-year trade school to learn useful job skills instead of a fluffy 4 year program.

At 11/19/08 08:32 AM, marchohare wrote:

I have a BA in Journalism with some Masters work. That and $5 will get me a burned-tasting cup of coffee at Starbucks. I'm making $12.50 an hour for high-end design work, and I'm lucky to have that.

Hmmm... Is Journalism structured like a liberal arts major with a small core and lots of electives, or a technical major with a large core?

The electrical engineering degree that I started a few months ago requires 45 classes, and the core is 30 classes (15 electrical engineering, 7 math, 5 Physics/Chemistry, 3 general engineering). My understanding is that is on the small side for engineering programs, although I'm not 100% sure about that.

My S.O.'s daughter is flunking out of high school, and shows every sign of being a kid who'll drop out. My S.O. (Registered Nurse, 3 Masters degrees, overqualified, unemployed) is terribly upset.

I'm quite sorry to hear that.

"Why?" I asked her. "We have a new, modern, 'service-based economy.' The kid will do about as well as everyone else without a high school diploma."

Well, to be honest a lot of the old factory jobs are being lost to automation and globalization. It's unfortunate, but unless our global society undergoes some sort of radical division (so as to end globalization) or some rapid ideological shift against science and technology (to end automation), those middle class factory jobs aren't coming back.

The two-tier middle class is here to stay.

It doesn't take a high school diploma in our New, Modern, Service-Based Economy. Servants serving each other in the great, "at least you have a job" circle-jerk the U.S. has become get $7.50 an hour. If you want to be an engineer or something, move to India or China. You'll still make chicken feed, but at least you'll find it easier to keep up with the Joneses.

Realistically the US couldn't compete with China in low-end manufacturing. Focusing on high-end industry, commerce, and skilled labor is a more reasonable strategy.

And how is a service oriented economy more of a circle jerk then an economy oriented around producing goods? I mean, if it's cheaper to manufacture the goods, then logically won't more people go into services. Quite frankly I'd be surprised if there weren't people in the 1700s calling the industrial economy something along the lines of a circle jerk, with the logic that resources are just being refined, and not actually produced.

The current and ongoing crash is by design, I assure you. That pesky American Middle Class was too expensive. Real global wealth was having to pass on their fourth mansion and second yacht and 30th exotic vacation per year and stuff.

People who blame this crash on the service based economy are morons. If it was based on that, then why are export-oriented economies like China nosediving harder than the US? Why isn't the US getting hit harder than the rest of the world economy because of our huge trade deficit.

[marchohare]

At 11/20/08 12:26 PM, Al6200 wrote: People who blame this crash on the service based economy are morons. If it was based on that, then why are export-oriented economies like China nosediving harder than the US? Why isn't the US getting hit harder than the rest of the world economy because of our huge trade deficit.

The U.S. is getting hit hard, and China just lost a lot of U.S. consumers who stopped consuming mindlessly.

Of course, I don't entirely "blame this crash on the service based economy"; I'm saying it's a factor, although there are others I don't have time to go into this morning--I have to be at work in 45 minutes. But... a note on that tactic: I'm not singling Al6200 out, a lot of people here do it, but stop assuming other's assertions are black-and-white. That's a silly logical fallacy I learned about before I was old enough to shave. Many factors are contributing to this crash. Plummeting pay and the loss of manufacturing is one. Deregulation and corporate malfeasance is another. In the last Depression, the Dust Bowl was a natural disaster unattached to any others (except by bad timing). This time around, another good natural catastrophe or two will finish what's left of the global economy off.

But regarding our labor problem, it's obvious. High-paying jobs are disappearing, being farmed out to where labor is cheap. More cheap labor continues to pour across our borders. The two-income family wasn't necessary when I was a kid: Dad worked, Mom was a housewife. That scenario is out of reach for couples now, and children are largely raised by the State via the Public Education (Indoctrination) system.

That last is why most of y'all show a deplorable inability to think.

Memorizing what some talking head on the boob-tube says is not thinking. Turn off the TV and the radio, and read the global press--multiple sources--online. You'll find your capacity for independent thought increasing.

What I find saddest in all this is that when the stock market crashes big-time and the panic really starts, the sheeple will blame everything except what really caused this mess.

People whose names most of y'all don't even know, who profit from corporate fraud and slave-labor wages, caused this disaster. Hold onto your hats, because Depression 2.0 is coming whether you like it or not.

The richest 500 people on the planet will hardly notice. They'll have theirs, while the rest of us will be wondering what roadkill tastes like.

[Al6200]

At 11/21/08 08:33 AM, marchohare wrote:

The U.S. is getting hit hard, and China just lost a lot of U.S. consumers who stopped consuming mindlessly.

Of course, I don't entirely "blame this crash on the service based economy"; I'm saying it's a factor, although there are others I don't have time to go into this morning--I have to be at work in 45 minutes. But... a note on that tactic: I'm not singling Al6200 out, a lot of people here do it, but stop assuming other's assertions are black-and-white. That's a silly logical fallacy I learned about before I was old enough to shave. Many factors are contributing to this crash. Plummeting pay and the loss of manufacturing is one. Deregulation and corporate malfeasance is another. In the last Depression, the Dust Bowl was a natural disaster unattached to any others (except by bad timing). This time around, another good natural catastrophe or two will finish what's left of the global economy off.

I never said that you didn't have any other things to blame it on, but clearly you do still blame it on the service based economy.

And "plummeting pay" and "loss of manufacturing" are quite related to the service economy. Plummeting pay because low-end service jobs pay less than manufacturing jobs, and loss of manufacturing jobs because of the service economy.

But regarding our labor problem, it's obvious. High-paying jobs are disappearing, being farmed out to where labor is cheap. More cheap labor continues to pour across our borders. The two-income family wasn't necessary when I was a kid: Dad worked, Mom was a housewife. That scenario is out of reach for couples now, and children are largely raised by the State via the Public Education (Indoctrination) system.

It's not so much that the high paying jobs are being lost. It's more that the true middle class jobs are disappearing (the factory jobs).

Engineers/doctors/lawyers still have it set, it's the people who can't obtain those advanced skills that are getting screwed over.

That last is why most of y'all show a deplorable inability to think.

It could also be the median age here is probably under 18.

Memorizing what some talking head on the boob-tube says is not thinking. Turn off the TV and the radio, and read the global press--multiple sources--online. You'll find your capacity for independent thought increasing.

Some TV news is high quality (think NPR, history channel, etc.) It's just the CNN "light" news that's garbage.

What I find saddest in all this is that when the stock market crashes big-time and the panic really starts, the sheeple will blame everything except what really caused this mess.

I'm actually pretty disturbed right now that we're trying to make investment bankers the scapegoats here. I mean, clearly they fucked up big time, but one could have reasonably made the case that financial derivatives didn't destabilize the economy - at least before this mess.

People whose names most of y'all don't even know, who profit from corporate fraud and slave-labor wages, caused this disaster. Hold onto your hats, because Depression 2.0 is coming whether you like it or not.

The richest 500 people on the planet will hardly notice. They'll have theirs, while the rest of us will be wondering what roadkill tastes like.

What does that have to do with anything?

[marchohare]

At 11/21/08 11:43 AM, Al6200 wrote: I never said that you didn't have any other things to blame it on, but clearly you do still blame it on the service based economy.

Partly, yes, although you appear to be agreeing with me in your next paragraph.

And "plummeting pay" and "loss of manufacturing" are quite related to the service economy. Plummeting pay because low-end service jobs pay less than manufacturing jobs, and loss of manufacturing jobs because of the service economy.

Not only manufacturing jobs have been lost. Other jobs have been too. Some were low-paying to begin with (customer service, telemarketing, etc.--those folks on the phone with the sometimes difficult-to-understand accents make even less, I'm sure), but others were not: creative design is one example with which I am intimately familiar. There are others. Just listen, you'll hear about them.

It's not so much that the high paying jobs are being lost. It's more that the true middle class jobs are disappearing (the factory jobs).

As I said, not just factory jobs. I'm personally aware of one California company that shipped its sculptors in from Mexico, paid them less than minimum wage, and let them sleep in the shop.

Engineers/doctors/lawyers still have it set, it's the people who can't obtain those advanced skills that are getting screwed over.

Ask a doctor sometime if they're not beings screwed over. If they're old enough, they'll tell you they've been increasingly screwed since Reagan was in office. The bureaucracy and insurance situation they have to deal with is horrific. I know several doctors who quit because of it.

There's your high cost of medicine, incidentally. Every doctor supports a platoon of office drones (I'm not talking about nurses). Government policy created that problem. For an efficient national health care system, Congress would have to tear out about 30 years worth of legislation and start over from scratch.

It could also be the median age here is probably under 18.

Is it? I'd actually placed it slightly higher than that, but... could be.

I'm actually pretty disturbed right now that we're trying to make investment bankers the scapegoats here. I mean, clearly they fucked up big time, but one could have reasonably made the case that financial derivatives didn't destabilize the economy - at least before this mess.

It's not just investment bankers. We have our friends in government to thank too, as well as greedy corporate executives, lawyers, lobbyists, and on and on.

I wrote:

The richest 500 people on the planet will hardly notice. They'll have theirs, while the rest of us will be wondering what roadkill tastes like.

What does that have to do with anything?

Everything. Because make no mistake about it, they run the show.

Our "leaders" in D.C. don't. A majority of them have been bought and paid for.

No reptiles from space or Illuminatus! stuff there--just business as usual.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 11/20/08 12:26 PM, Al6200 wrote:

By contrasts chemistry/math/engineering cannot be watered down and turned into cream puff majors because there are objective standards).

Ah yes of course, the usual Engineer swagger that I've seen so many times.
While I will agree with you that many Liberal Arts majors are cream puffed and have no job success in the near future, I'm qute suprised of you labeling Business a cream puff.

Do you mean, just a Business degree in general, or the entire Business department? Because not all business is under your impression of cream puff. Finance for example (my own personal major and of course my own bias) isn't what I would call a cream puff major.

[Al6200]

At 11/21/08 06:41 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 11/20/08 12:26 PM, Al6200 wrote:

By contrasts chemistry/math/engineering cannot be watered down and turned into cream puff majors because there are objective standards).

Ah yes of course, the usual Engineer swagger that I've seen so many times.
While I will agree with you that many Liberal Arts majors are cream puffed and have no job success in the near future, I'm qute suprised of you labeling Business a cream puff.

Do you mean, just a Business degree in general, or the entire Business department? Because not all business is under your impression of cream puff. Finance for example (my own personal major and of course my own bias) isn't what I would call a cream puff major.

I wasn't really saying that ALL business or psychology majors are watered down. I was only saying that there is the potential for them to be watered down, because there is no (to my knowledge) certification process for business majors, and there is only some degree that you can water down and still get ABET accreditation.

In fact, I am sure that there are many business programs that are considerably tougher than engineering programs. Writing papers is tough, and so is the huge amount of reading. And I'm sure at a good school the business programs are quite rigorous - however if the school doesn't have very high standards then business could easily become a creampuff major.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 11/21/08 07:27 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 11/21/08 06:41 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 11/20/08 12:26 PM, Al6200 wrote:

I wasn't really saying that ALL business or psychology majors are watered down. I was only saying that there is the potential for them to be watered down, because there is no (to my knowledge) certification process for business majors, and there is only some degree that you can water down and still get ABET accreditation.

Ahh but there's the problem there are certification processes for many fields within Business.
For my own major, depending on where I want to head to, I might need to get a CFA (Chartered Financial Analyst, or an Associate of Corporate Treasures (ACT).
Or If I decided to become an Accounant ( I wouldn't, but just for the example) I would need to get certified as a Public Accountant, or as a Chartered Accountant.

[Garthredbunlove]

At 11/21/08 08:01 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 11/21/08 07:27 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 11/21/08 06:41 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 11/20/08 12:26 PM, Al6200 wrote:

I wasn't really saying that ALL business or psychology majors are watered down. I was only saying that there is the potential for them to be watered down, because there is no (to my knowledge) certification process for business majors, and there is only some degree that you can water down and still get ABET accreditation.

Ahh but there's the problem there are certification processes for many fields within Business.
For my own major, depending on where I want to head to, I might need to get a CFA (Chartered Financial Analyst, or an Associate of Corporate Treasures (ACT).
Or If I decided to become an Accounant ( I wouldn't, but just for the example) I would need to get certified as a Public Accountant, or as a Chartered Accountant.

Exactly. I think what he's thinking of are those business majors who are really economics majors, administrative majors, and marketing majors. Econ is useful, but it's too broad and theoretical, and while it can be very useful for consulting, that's the only option for it. Marketing and management are probably the fluffiest out there for business, and there's far too many people with those degrees.

That's why so many people with business degrees end up not succeeding. There's far too much competition, and if you don't fully understand the money, you have to rely on good people to push you along. Probably the three most important degrees in business are finance, accounting and law.

[Al6200]

At 11/21/08 08:01 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Ahh but there's the problem there are certification processes for many fields within Business.
For my own major, depending on where I want to head to, I might need to get a CFA (Chartered Financial Analyst, or an Associate of Corporate Treasures (ACT).
Or If I decided to become an Accounant ( I wouldn't, but just for the example) I would need to get certified as a Public Accountant, or as a Chartered Accountant.

So it would seem I stand corrected. I didn't realize that businesspeople other than accountants or actuaries had certification processes.

But there are still are business degrees outside of those areas that can be watered down significantly...

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 11/22/08 09:47 AM, Al6200 wrote:

At 11/21/08 08:01 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

But there are still are business degrees outside of those areas that can be watered down significantly...

Of course, usually marketing or a management are along those lines.